Jeremy Shockey

seahawk · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 69

Frank Hughes brings up the question in the Seahawks Insider of whether we
should go after Shockey for a reasonable draft pick to the Giants. For those
of you that nixed my idea of going after Martellus Bennett in the first
round of the draft, there's an alternative. That is if anyone thinks that
after watching him swilling beer in the press box while his team was on the
field fighting the best team in football from the regular season, Ruskell
would approve the character part of his application to be a Seahawk.

Shockey is a tough hombre and is going to make somebody upgraded at the TE
position if you consider on-field play. I personally would much rather
develop Martellus Bennett (who is now appearing on some scouts pages as the
top TE in the draft) because I think Shockey would upset our finely crafted
locker room charisma that we've finely achieved after getting rid of the
last of the dissenters last season. Shockey is a complete TE in that he is a
good blocker and commands respect as a receiver down the middle of the
field. No doubt in my mind that he could do the job we require of a TE. With
me it's the character issue although as far as I know he's never been in any
real trouble with the police, just doesn't get along with coaches and
players sometimes. That's something we finally eliminated on the Seahawks
and I'm loath to go back to those days.

I don't think anyone could argue that Shockey wouldn't bring toughness and
much needed better play from the TE position to the team but at what cost to
the chemistry? I wonder what NY would take for him draft pick wise. Maybe a
4th rounder or so.

So what do you guy's think of Shockey as a TE solution for the Seahawks
instead of spending a high draft pick?

--
William P. Tomisser
"Power Of Ten" Band
www.poweroften.net
Anchorage, Alaska

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>sea-seahawks

Peter Reggio · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 36

"seahawk" wrote in message @corp.supernews.com...
> Frank Hughes brings up the question in the Seahawks Insider of whether we
> should go after Shockey for a reasonable draft pick to the Giants. For
> those of you that nixed my idea of going after Martellus Bennett in the
> first round of the draft, there's an alternative. That is if anyone thinks
> that after watching him swilling beer in the press box while his team was
> on the field fighting the best team in football from the regular season,
> Ruskell would approve the character part of his application to be a
> Seahawk.
>
> Shockey is a tough hombre and is going to make somebody upgraded at the TE
> position if you consider on-field play. I personally would much rather
> develop Martellus Bennett (who is now appearing on some scouts pages as
> the top TE in the draft) because I think Shockey would upset our finely
> crafted locker room charisma that we've finely achieved after getting rid
> of the last of the dissenters last season. Shockey is a complete TE in
> that he is a good blocker and commands respect as a receiver down the
> middle of the field. No doubt in my mind that he could do the job we
> require of a TE. With me it's the character issue although as far as I
> know he's never been in any real trouble with the police, just doesn't get
> along with coaches and players sometimes. That's something we finally
> eliminated on the Seahawks and I'm loath to go back to those days.
>
> I don't think anyone could argue that Shockey wouldn't bring toughness and
> much needed better play from the TE position to the team but at what cost
> to the chemistry? I wonder what NY would take for him draft pick wise.
> Maybe a 4th rounder or so.
>
> So what do you guy's think of Shockey as a TE solution for the Seahawks
> instead of spending a high draft pick?
>
> --
> William P. Tomisser
> "Power Of Ten" Band
> www.poweroften.net
> Anchorage, Alaska

A) Schlockey isn't worth the trouble his mouth and attitude would bring.
Ruskell has been actively working towards getting rid of such types, why
would he change horses now?

B) Schlockey's getting old. If you want to steal someone from the
Giants, get his replacement Boss - he's been quiet and he does his job.

C) Frank Hughes is worse than a poor man's Mike Sando. They paid for
him to go to the Super Bowl and not one story covering the game...instead we
get stupid basketball analogies and retread AP/UPI stories. At the very
least, he doesn't have the dedication to doing the job right...the jury's
still out on his spelling, grammar and general writing talent (and he's had
8 months to show that, so I'm being very generous). This is what happens
when you bring a basketball-reporting Redskins fan to the Seahawks blog.

Regis

Phil N D'Blan©® · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 41

>> "seahawk" wrote in message.
>> @corp.supernews.com...

(All kinds of well thought out writing deleted for clarity)

-----
Shockey (IMHO) has never lived up to his lofty expectations,
yes he has had his moments, but he has been nicked up, had
character issues, and is now coming off a broken leg and ankle
that required surgery. *IF* he was cut by NYG AND he was
willing to sign a heavily incentive laden deal for 2 or 3 years
at the veterans minimum with zero guarantees, I would consider
signing him. Were it me, I would also make dammed sure that
he did not get paid any sorts of signing bonus/guaranteed money
that I could not spare or readily reclaim if he did not come
back playing well, or created locker room issues, and the short
answer is that I doubt that Shockey would sign for such a deal.

Squidly · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 47

On Feb 5, 3:16 am, "seahawk" wrote:

> So what do you guy's think of Shockey as a TE solution for the Seahawks
> instead of spending a high draft pick?

I like Shockey, and think he'd excel in our offense.
His mouth and gesturing doesn't worry me a bit, as we
have the player and coaching leadership to handle that.

If healthy, he'd be an ideal fit, skills wise.

Now I doubt he fits in with the Ruskell personality profile,
so I don't see it happening.

BillB

MySelf · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 15

Peter Reggio wrote:
>> C) Frank Hughes is worse than a poor man's Mike Sando. They paid
>> for him to go to the Super Bowl and not one story covering the
>> game...instead we get stupid basketball analogies and retread AP/UPI
>> stories. At the very least, he doesn't have the dedication to doing
>> the job right...the jury's still out on his spelling, grammar and
>> general writing talent (and he's had 8 months to show that, so I'm
>> being very generous). This is what happens when you bring a
>> basketball-reporting Redskins fan to the Seahawks blog.
>>

You noticed that too huh, grammer etc? I should have known he had a BKB
background. I rarely go there anymore, maybe 4 times since Sando
left, once in the post season. I find his writing to be very
un-interesting. A sad legacy for the Seakawks blog...
John

MySelf · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 15

Peter Reggio wrote:
> "seahawk" wrote in message
> @corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Frank Hughes brings up the question in the Seahawks Insider of whether we
>> should go after Shockey for a reasonable draft pick to the Giants.
>>
>
> A) Schlockey isn't worth the trouble his mouth and attitude would bring.
> Ruskell has been actively working towards getting rid of such types, why
> would he change horses now?
>

This would be my only concern, that he has a rather big mouth and the
ability to disrupt things. Not sure how he'd fit in with the teams
chemistry, however he is a good player, I have to give him that.

> B) Schlockey's getting old. If you want to steal someone from the
> Giants, get his replacement Boss - he's been quiet and he does his job.
>

Shockey is 27 with 6 years experience, I don't think thats old. Maybe
for a 10 year contract but... For the right contract of maybe 4-5
years, ability wise he'll fit nicely. If this other dude that's being
bandied about is so good, ain't no way he'll be available when we pick,
and we need more than 1 player to bank our hopes on.

John

MySelf · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 15

Phil N D'Blan©® wrote:
>>> "seahawk" wrote in message.
>>> @corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>
> (All kinds of well thought out writing deleted for clarity)
>
> -----
> Shockey (IMHO) has never lived up to his lofty expectations,
> yes he has had his moments, but he has been nicked up, had
> character issues, and is now coming off a broken leg and ankle
> that required surgery. *IF* he was cut by NYG AND he was
> willing to sign a heavily incentive laden deal for 2 or 3 years
> at the veterans minimum with zero guarantees, I would consider
> signing him.

Agreed, a long term over 5 years max would be too much, however keep in
mind he is young at 27 so a 4-5 yr could be ok, however as you mention,
incentives and production levels would need to be included to somewhat
protect our investment in him. No high round pick offer!
John

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

MySelf wrote:
> Phil N D'Blan©® wrote:
>>>> "seahawk" wrote in message.
>>>> @corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>
>> (All kinds of well thought out writing deleted for clarity)
>>
>> -----
>> Shockey (IMHO) has never lived up to his lofty expectations,
>> yes he has had his moments, but he has been nicked up, had
>> character issues, and is now coming off a broken leg and ankle
>> that required surgery. *IF* he was cut by NYG AND he was
>> willing to sign a heavily incentive laden deal for 2 or 3 years
>> at the veterans minimum with zero guarantees, I would consider
>> signing him.
>
> Agreed, a long term over 5 years max would be too much, however keep in
> mind he is young at 27 so a 4-5 yr could be ok, however as you mention,
> incentives and production levels would need to be included to somewhat
> protect our investment in him. No high round pick offer!

Shockey can get top money and top draft picks in trade, so if the
Seahawks aren't willing to give those up, they won't get him.

Stephen

MySelf · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 15

Stephen Trapani wrote:
> MySelf wrote:
>> Phil N D'Blan©® wrote:
>>>>> "seahawk" wrote in message.
>>>>> @corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>
>>> (All kinds of well thought out writing deleted for clarity)
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Shockey (IMHO) has never lived up to his lofty expectations,
>>> yes he has had his moments, but he has been nicked up, had
>>> character issues, and is now coming off a broken leg and ankle
>>> that required surgery. *IF* he was cut by NYG AND he was
>>> willing to sign a heavily incentive laden deal for 2 or 3 years
>>> at the veterans minimum with zero guarantees, I would consider
>>> signing him.
>>
>> Agreed, a long term over 5 years max would be too much, however keep
>> in mind he is young at 27 so a 4-5 yr could be ok, however as you
>> mention, incentives and production levels would need to be included
>> to somewhat protect our investment in him. No high round pick offer!
>
> Shockey can get top money and top draft picks in trade, so if the
> Seahawks aren't willing to give those up, they won't get him.
>
> Stephen

Even with this years injury, leg and ankle? I think those are his stock
and trade (mobility) and I have a concern about his ability to recover
to post injury levels. I f we do take a shot at him, lets not get crazy
and pin all our hopes on one player for all the bucks. We need a RB and
a few other positions too, not just a TE.
John

Melvin · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 24

On Feb 5, 4:13 am, "Peter Reggio" wrote:

> C) Frank Hughes is worse than a poor man's Mike Sando. They paid for
> him to go to the Super Bowl and not one story covering the game...instead we
> get stupid basketball analogies and retread AP/UPI stories. At the very
> least, he doesn't have the dedication to doing the job right...the jury's
> still out on his spelling, grammar and general writing talent (and he's had
> 8 months to show that, so I'm being very generous). This is what happens
> when you bring a basketball-reporting Redskins fan to the Seahawks blog.

Frank isn't bad, but he isn't Sando either. There's a reason Sando won
those blog awards and got scooped up by ESPN. Neither one of them is a
great writer (like Michael Silver, for example), but Sando is a very
good, if not great, reporter, meaning that he knows how to find the
interesting stuff.

But there's still hope for Frank. He's still a rookie. You can't call
him a bust yet.

Melvin

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

MySelf wrote:
> Stephen Trapani wrote:
>> MySelf wrote:
>>> Phil N D'Blan©® wrote:
>>>>>> "seahawk" wrote in message.
>>>>>> @corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (All kinds of well thought out writing deleted for clarity)
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> Shockey (IMHO) has never lived up to his lofty expectations,
>>>> yes he has had his moments, but he has been nicked up, had
>>>> character issues, and is now coming off a broken leg and ankle
>>>> that required surgery. *IF* he was cut by NYG AND he was
>>>> willing to sign a heavily incentive laden deal for 2 or 3 years
>>>> at the veterans minimum with zero guarantees, I would consider
>>>> signing him.
>>>
>>> Agreed, a long term over 5 years max would be too much, however keep
>>> in mind he is young at 27 so a 4-5 yr could be ok, however as you
>>> mention, incentives and production levels would need to be included
>>> to somewhat protect our investment in him. No high round pick offer!
>>
>> Shockey can get top money and top draft picks in trade, so if the
>> Seahawks aren't willing to give those up, they won't get him.
>>
>> Stephen
>
> Even with this years injury, leg and ankle? I think those are his stock
> and trade (mobility) and I have a concern about his ability to recover
> to post injury levels.

I don't know the details of his injury, but I do know that leg fractures
are generally the easiest injuries to rehab 100% from.

> I f we do take a shot at him, lets not get crazy
> and pin all our hopes on one player for all the bucks. We need a RB and
> a few other positions too, not just a TE.

I agree with this. And I tend to believe Holmgren when he said that the
Seahawks won't be big FA players this offseason anyway. So, sadly,
probably no Shockey for us.

Stephen

Trakar · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

"MySelf" wrote in message @comcast.com...

>... We need a RB and a few other positions too, not just a TE.
> John

I'm just not convinced of our "need" for a new RB. With a healthy SA and
MoMo, and I believe we still have options on Scobey and Pearman, so long as
we get our OL straightened out these should be more than enough, and if we
don't get our OL straightened out it wouldn't matter if we brought in
Jackson and Peterson, they wouldn't do much better than any of our backs
this past season. I think the consistent time together this last season will
help our line, they started making some visible improvements towards the end
of the season. I think the coaching change is a definite upgrade, now if we
can add a couple of good pieces for strength and depth (including a young,
strong, "full package" TE) our running game will be fine with the backs and
options we already possess. I'd much prefer our draft and especially our FA
focus go in other, more fundamental directions.

MySelf · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 15

Trakar wrote:
> "MySelf" wrote in message
> @comcast.com...
>
>
>> ... We need a RB and a few other positions too, not just a TE.
>> John
>>
>
> I'm just not convinced of our "need" for a new RB. With a healthy SA and
> MoMo,

I don't foresee Shaun coming back at full strength due to injuries, his
style and his age. Shaun is 30 w/ 8 yrs exp, MoMo 28 & 6 yrs exp.
Neither is a stellar back, and I think we need one that is better than
both at this point, if not this year, definitely next year at the
latest. We need to plan for the future in this position so we have a
balanced attack. Shaun will be gone soon, after next year I suspect and
MoMo whenever his contract expires, 2 more years IIRC. The O-line plays
a large part in this thus my contention that we need other players too
and can ill afford to pay the big bucks Shockey will probably command.
I firmly believe that lack of a running game hurt our chances to go
further in the post season because our opponents only had one thing to
contend with, our receiving corps.

John

seahawk · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 69

Stephen Trapani wrote:
> MySelf wrote:
>> Phil N D'Blan©® wrote:
>>>>> "seahawk" wrote in message.
>>>>> @corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>
>>> (All kinds of well thought out writing deleted for clarity)
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Shockey (IMHO) has never lived up to his lofty expectations,
>>> yes he has had his moments, but he has been nicked up, had
>>> character issues, and is now coming off a broken leg and ankle
>>> that required surgery. *IF* he was cut by NYG AND he was
>>> willing to sign a heavily incentive laden deal for 2 or 3 years
>>> at the veterans minimum with zero guarantees, I would consider
>>> signing him.
>>
>> Agreed, a long term over 5 years max would be too much, however keep
>> in mind he is young at 27 so a 4-5 yr could be ok, however as you
>> mention, incentives and production levels would need to be included
>> to somewhat protect our investment in him. No high round pick offer!
>
> Shockey can get top money and top draft picks in trade, so if the
> Seahawks aren't willing to give those up, they won't get him.
>
> Stephen

I'm not convinced of that Stephen.

New York might of had enough of his antics and before the emergence of Boss
had little choice but to keep trying to keep things in hand. Now that Boss
has shown that he can handle the position, New York might be wanting to get
him off the roster because of the chemistry problems he brings to the table.
Those same problems might make him not as marketable as he could be
otherwise. I suppose the Raiders if no one else would consider him without
those reservations if they really needed a TE but I'm not sure all the teams
in the league would.

For example, I really doubt the Seahawks would even consider it beyond a
general discussion such as we're having here. I don't think Shockey
qualifies as an off-field problem like Stevens did but he certainly has
on-field issues with teammates and coaches which would kill the idea of us
making a trade for him if I read where Ruskell wants to go correctly unless
they did it with a minimum invested and could get out of it cleanly if he
didn't mend his ways. I think there are other teams with that same attitude
about players like Shockey.

OTOH, you could be right and someone else that feels they need a TE as much
as we do could be willing to overlook the locker room aspect of the deal and
make a big offer. After all, Shockey is in the prime of his career right now
and has 4 or 5 years left conceivably at that prime level. For a team
willing to put up with his attitude and self centered behavior, he would be
considered to be a genuine impact player that could turn an offense around
and worth a big investment. Although not as athletically gifted as Stevens
who was drafted in the same year or possessing as much potential when they
were rookies, he sure has had a much more productive career and is a proven
player where Stevens has become a proven problem.

Only under a contract with a very short leash and no long term investment
would I even consider Shockey for the Seahawks and I do think someone else
would be willing to make a much less restrictive deal with a lot more up
front money so we're not going to even have a chance anyway.

I think it really underscores the point though as the other Phil over in the
Tri Cities has pointed out, you really have to find these guys yourself in
the draft (although he was talking about a different position). No one is
going to cut loose or make available an impact player with a lot of years
left in his prime unless there is a problem of some kind with that player
that another team has to consider whether it's a physical problem, an
attitude problem, or a not enough money in under the cap problem.
Regardless, you really are better off investing your dollars in top scouting
and talent evaluators and let them find these guys for you in the draft like
we did with Tatupu. Look at the difference between what Tatupu is costing
for his first 5 years versus what Peterson cost us for 5 years and you'll
see what I mean. Two different perennial pro bowl linebackers one drafted
and one acquired in free agency because of another teams cap problems.

I still say draft that TE in the first round. Smile

--
William P. Tomisser
"Power Of Ten" Band
www.poweroften.net
Anchorage, Alaska

seahawk · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 69

Squidly wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:16 am, "seahawk" wrote:
>
>> So what do you guy's think of Shockey as a TE solution for the
>> Seahawks instead of spending a high draft pick?
>
> I like Shockey, and think he'd excel in our offense.
> His mouth and gesturing doesn't worry me a bit, as we
> have the player and coaching leadership to handle that.
>
> If healthy, he'd be an ideal fit, skills wise.
>
> Now I doubt he fits in with the Ruskell personality profile,
> so I don't see it happening.
>
> BillB

That's where I see the big problem too. I think there's a difference in
off-field problems with the law and a personality type that makes you be
declared an on -field problem. Ruskell however, doesn't seem to want to make
any such distinction but wants his splayers squeaky clean in all aspects.

I guess that's ok but in a case like Shockey, it migh hurt our chances to
get the personnel we really need to improve the team. Great chemistry can
only take you so far without the talent to back it up.

--
William P. Tomisser
"Power Of Ten" Band
www.poweroften.net
Anchorage, Alaska

Shockey Should Join Barber I really liked Jeremy Shockey and wasn't sure what to make of his whole "I'm training hard in FLA" routine. One thing was clear - he was way too happy hanging out in a luxury box than on the field with his team. I'm not even sure it was his team any more.

Dispelling rumors about Shockey Bill A.

NFL Picks of the week Nfl picks of the week and Team Power Poll

HBO Inside the NFL Be sure to watch this week's episode of Inside the NFL - it is the last telecast (forever) -- the show has been canceled. Anyway -- the last scene with Nick Buoniconti and the rest of the cast is funny -- (they also brought Len Dawson back as well) Take

New way for Arizona to lose? In today's game, the football Cardinals lost any chance of a comeback victory when they committed an offensive foul with 7 seconds remaining. The game ended on the 10 second runoff. The football Cardinals have had countless failed attempts at comebacks ov